A few true if possibly unpopular points which I am putting here because I have no interest in arguing in threads1 of comments:
Public bodies meet to conduct public business. There are things that are under the purview of specific public bodies, and they are required to meet in posted meetings of a quorum of that body to make decisions in public (with ten exceptions).
By Massachusetts state law, those public meetings are not required to have public comment, which is always, under MGL Ch. 30A, sec. 20 (g), at the discretion of the chair 2
Public bodies do not meet to hear from the public. Neither the First Amendment or the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights has any right to address a public body. You have a right to petition your representatives, but there is no requirement that this happen in a public setting with a quorum present (or on video). You can send them a letter, or write a letter to a local press outlet, or call them, or talk to them when you see them in public, or post on social media. There's your right of petition.
They do not hold meetings to hear from the public. That is not why they meet.
They can. It is even recommended in the guidance to the open meeting law.
But it is not required, and it is not a recognized--note the word--and protected right to address your public body in their posted public meeting.
They can. It is even recommended in the guidance to the open meeting law.
But it is not required, and it is not a recognized--note the word--and protected right to address your public body in their posted public meeting.
____________________________
1The night I saw someone trying to use the Supreme Court's Tinker v. Des Moines decision to attempt to defend a claim about rights to protest in public meetings, I closed Facebook and went to read a book.
2related unpopular point: MGL Ch. 30A also gives the chair the authority to remove those disrupting the meeting. Thus, no, there is no legal right in Massachusetts to disrupt a public meeting3, and (this part is my opinion) chairs who recess and adjourn meetings rather than having people removed by a constable, as the law allows, are choosing a less combative route.
3 Do not take this as a moral judgment on my part on the rightness, wrongness, or even effectiveness of disruption of local public meetings. Something being not legally recognized doesn't equate to it being right, wrong, or effective.
1The night I saw someone trying to use the Supreme Court's Tinker v. Des Moines decision to attempt to defend a claim about rights to protest in public meetings, I closed Facebook and went to read a book.
2related unpopular point: MGL Ch. 30A also gives the chair the authority to remove those disrupting the meeting. Thus, no, there is no legal right in Massachusetts to disrupt a public meeting3, and (this part is my opinion) chairs who recess and adjourn meetings rather than having people removed by a constable, as the law allows, are choosing a less combative route.
3 Do not take this as a moral judgment on my part on the rightness, wrongness, or even effectiveness of disruption of local public meetings. Something being not legally recognized doesn't equate to it being right, wrong, or effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment